Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

The Road from Climate Science to Climate Activism

By Andrew C. Revkin January 9, 2008 2:36 pmJanuary 9, 2008 2:36 pm

Dr. Richard C. J. Somerville (Credit: Sylvia Bal Somerville)

Richard C. J. Somerville, a climatologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography near San Diego, is one of a growing array of scientists who have chosen to move beyond studying heat transfer and cloud physics and take on the role of activist: prodding society to move aggressively to cut greenhouse gases.

It is a sticky position, and comes with risks, not the least of which is the potential for opponents of gas restrictions to raise questions about a scientist-advocate’s objectivity back in the research world. But Dr. Somerville, who has also contributed to several reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the risks that attend further silence, in the face of ever-growing emissions of heat-trapping gases, are far greater.

Last month, he attended the climate-treaty talks in Bali as part of a small delegation representing 200 scientists who signed a declaration pressing negotiators to commit to preventing the global temperature from rising more than 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit above where it is now (roughly 59 degrees).

He has just written a column for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explaining why this group of researchers chose this course, and what they feel needs to happen next. His column is online here.

This was the declaration:

The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction.

The next round of focused negotiations for a new global climate treaty (within the 1992 UNFCCC process) needs to begin in December 2007 and be completed by 2009. The prime goal of this new regime must be to limit global warming to no more than 2 ºC above the pre-industrial temperature, a limit that has already been formally adopted by the European Union and a number of other countries.

Based on current scientific understanding, this requires that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the long run, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilised at a level well below 450 ppm (parts per million; measured in CO2-equivalent concentration). In order to stay below 2 ºC, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years, so there is no time to lose.

As scientists, we urge the negotiators to reach an agreement that takes these targets as a minimum requirement for a fair and effective global climate agreement.

In an email exchange, I asked Dr. Somerville what he thought was needed in order to spark the changes the letter seeks. He responded, “I think a dramatic shocking surprising climate event that is unambiguously due to global warming may be the only thing that motivates people and governments. Maybe a big chunk of ice sheet destabilizing and producing a significant sudden sea level rise. Unfortunately, then it may be too late, because it’s essentially irreversible; you can’t cool the world enough to make the ice re-form quickly.”

I followed up this way: “Was the declaration more a way for scientists at least to say, ‘Look we’ve done everything we can do?’”

“Maybe, for some,” Dr. Somerville responded. “It’s hard to say. We wordsmithed the Bali declaration and then just invited some good scientists to sign. They didn’t get a chance to explain why they did or did not decide to sign. Some did not sign, because they thought even deeper emissions cuts are needed. Some could not sign, because their jobs did not allow them to make public policy statements (some civil servants in other countries are in this category). It is very tough in general to get scientists to make policy advocacy statements. It goes against the grain. They are more comfortable just doing research. Some scientists are opposed to any scientist doing any form of policy advocacy. Most are politically naive, I should think. I certainly am.”

“For me, and maybe for many, I think that ‘going public’ and making a statement as an individual, who is also a climate expert, is simply a next logical step,” Dr. Somerville said. “After all, many politicians have said that scientists should be heard from more. As long as we are always at pains to make clear that we are speaking only as individuals, not on behalf of our employers or other organizations, then I think we are just behaving as good citizens.”

He concluded: “It’s certainly true too that many of us are disappointed and frustrated that the climate negotiations have produced so little so far. I am. The negotiators often seem to me to have forgotten the basic reason why these meetings exist. The science is not very visible at the negotiations. Unless the negotiations can find the political will to agree on enforceable and meaningful (= large) cuts in emissions, the climate is going to degrade. That’s just a fact.”

Other scientists disagree with this kind of activism, most notably Susan Solomon, who was the co-leader of the 2007 I.P.C.C. assessment of climate trends. In an email exchange on the general issue of scientists and policy debate last weekend (just before she flew to Antarctica), she said: “If we as scientists go beyond what we know into our personal opinions and values, we begin to engage in the same sort of personal speculation masquerading as authoritative that we dislike when it is done by the skeptics.”

Do scientists have a special obligation to be neutral when it comes to the implications of their findings for society more broadly? Is it possible to advocate for a particular course in climate policy and not have that color how you do your scientific research, or how you communicate it?

I applaud and tip my hat to Dr. Somerville for speaking out, and I urge other scientists (and others) to do so.

I have a science background (from Berkeley), and I also study morality/ethics. On an issue such as global warming, with its immense implications, it would be an abdication of one’s responsibility as a human to NOT speak out in ways that are educational and that prompt healthy societal change. In my view, it can be argued (strongly) that a scientist (or other person) actually has an obligation to speak out if she/he is convinced that harm is on the way. Scientists should do so. What theory is there that claims that scientists should not speak out, when they are confident and concerned? What grounds that theory?

Other people should be speaking out as well. Many more economists. Moral philosophers! Religious leaders. College students. And so forth.

And, the media should be doing a much better job on the global warming issue.

And what are corporate directors doing?

To anyone who is reasonably and credibly convinced that global warming is real, but who nevertheless is trying to decide whether it’s “appropriate” to speak out, I’d recommend a great Bob Dylan song, “What Good Am I?”, on his “Oh Mercy” album. And, the latest Joni Mitchell CD.

I hope that many more scientists (and others) find the courage to speak out. Eloquence is not a requirement. Sincerity is. I hope the media find much more courage and wisdom as well, soon.

I also want to applaud people on this blog for speaking out, and I hope that we can find ways to be even more effective.

Do we as research scientists remain neutral? Excellent question. It is made more complicated by the ability to publish and communicate online, instead of just via science journals. From 1985-1995 I focussed 90% of my science research communication activities on peer reviewed science publications and 10% on popular articles. From 1995-2005, about 50% on peer reviewed science, 10% on popular articles and 40% on web publishing. From 2005-now 30% on peer review publications, 30% on popular articles and 40% on web publishing. I am a leading expert in only one thing glaciers, and in particular their mass balance and response to climate change. I try to communicate exactly what I observe, with as much vivid detail as possible, what the underlying causes are and what the implications are. That is all. I am not an expert in solutions to global warming and though I probably have at least one publication a month somewhere, I stick to the glacier facts in these articles. In teaching I do strongly advocate to my students the need for addressing the issue and examine with them possible solutions. And in my personal life I make reducing my carbon footprint a priority, including reducing my travel to distant science conferences. Thus, only by example do I advocate a position.

What we call “climate science” is pure advocacy, and has been for the last twenty years. The only debate is whether this should be concealed, or shouted loudly and proudly from the rooftops. As an old fart who still believes in shame, I’m sad to see the second option winning.

If you disagree, I have two words for you: “Climate Audit.” Google them.

Too many scientists claim that as members of the scientist community, they should abstain from advocacy, leaving it to the “policy makers.”

But climate change is such a danger, with such complexity and potential for misunderstanding, that scientists have a greater obligation as members of the HUMAN community, and should speak out for action.

It’s especially important to fight the efforts of demagogs to claim that uncertainties about climate change and its effects are reason for inaction. The uncertainties mean the risk may be greater, increasing the need for action.

The discussion should move beyond the scientific complexities and uncertainties, which could keep us talking until it’s too late. The focus should be on forcing the most effective action.

I noticed you have taken “Bob Dylan fan” off your signature. Is this because he’s doing commercials for the Caddy Escalade? I was dismayed when I heard that. Talk about climate (and national security) unfriendly.

I have to add something here that didn’t fit above — a statement that Dr. Somerville made last year at a debate in Manhattan over the premise that “Global Warming is Not A Crisis.” It was organized by a group called Intelligence Squared and the audio as well as a transcript are online.

Dr. Somerville was on the team attacking that premise, but he offered a definition of the word “crisis” that was very different than those used by many climate campaigners, including former Vice President Al Gore. Here’s Dr. Somerville’s opening statement, which is well worth reading:

The motion before us, global warming is not crisis, means we ought to know what crisis means. The word does not mean catastrophe or alarmism. It means a crucial or decisive moment, a turning point, a state of affairs in which a decisive change for better or worse is imminent. We are talking about the future here. The entire world now really does have a critical choice to make.

It is whether to continue on the present path of adding more and more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere or whether to find another path. We‘re speaking of the future. And science tells us that the path we choose will largely determine what kind of earth our children and grandchildren will inherit. Our task tonight is to persuade you that global warming is indeed a crisis in exactly that precise sense so you should vote against the motion. The science community today has impeccable settled science, despite what you have just heard, that demonstrates the reality of global warming and its primary origin in human activities.

We fully understand the fundamental physics behind the greenhouse effect. We also now have persuasive observational evidence of dramatic changes already taking place in the climate system, changes that are not in any sense small. Mankind‘s fingerprints
have now clearly emerged above the noise of natural variability….

We also have powerful tools to project many aspects of the future climate with considerable confidence. We take into account other important factors besides greenhouse gases – the sun, volcanoes, pollution particles. Some of our forecasts have already come true.

A group of people dispute these consensus findings of mainstream scientists. Call them contrarians. Some are here in this very room. Contrarians are not unique to climate. They exist in many fields of science. There are a few retrovirus experts, fully credentialed, who don‘t think that HIV causes AIDS. The New Yorker this week, many of you will have seen, writes about them. When the revolution of continental drift was sweeping through geology and geophysics, some imminent earth scientists couldn‘t be persuaded that plate tectonics were real. Continents can move. These contrarians were mistaken. They faded from the scene.

Experience, long experience, shows that in science it tends to be the rare exception rather than the rule when a lone genius eventually prevails over conventional mainstream scientific thought. An occasional Galileo does come along or an Einstein. Not often. Most people who think they‘re a Galileo are just wrong. We‘re talking here about managing risk for the future. It‘s a big risk to the planet to bet it on the contrarians.

I’d like to ask a few “inconvenient” questions.
These questions drive me nuts because no one
ever even asks them, let alone offers coherent
answers to them.
1. If we have reached the point, in this day
and age, with all the educational and cultural
opportunities available in a first-world country
like this, and yet we still get polled majorities
believing in “god” and not believing even in
EVOLUTION, let alone anthropogenic global warming,
isn’t that empirical evidence that “the people”
are not qualified to rule themselves, that “the
vote” should not be so promiscuously dispensed
the way it currently is?

2.Am I really the ONLY intellectual who seriously
asks these questions?

The problem appears to be a concern that climate scientist will not be able to retain their objectivity when doing their science if they become advocates of a policy position that reflects their interpretation of their results.

This is, of course, nonsense. We expect medical researchers to not only report their results but to report their conclusions and inferences with respect to our health. Some do go on to become advocates of practices and policies aimed at improving health. Smoking and anti-smoking issues are notable examples. Do we then believe these researchers have somehow become less objective in their science?

The science is about finding evidence for cause and effects. Scientists then interpret their findings for the rest of society. If those interpretations include potential bad effects do we really want the scientists to abdicate their responsibilities as citizens to help the rest of us understand?

I would suggest that the fear from the general public (as well as among some scientists) about scientists becoming advocates comes from the diminished ability in many people to be intellectually honest. That is, to reflect on one’s own thinking process and ask hard questions about one’s own biases. This is necessary in order to be able to sort out what is implied from evidence vs. what we want to believe is true. I suspect many people intuitively realize that they do not have this capacity (or are afraid to use it) and assume, subconsciously, that all scientists must be similarly handicapped. Some may be, of course. But it isn’t necessarily the case. And I personally know many scientists who are able to bring intellectual honesty to bear in their lives outside of the science they explore.

I say let those who see the need because their work demonstrates the urgency advocate as much as they can. James Hansen seems to be tending in this direction.

My own unworthy opinion is that too many policy makers (suggesters) are not as deeply familiar with the background science or the science process to deal with the needs of a technologically and scientifically complex world. In my ideal world more than half of the congress and the president would all have been scientists (especially in the biological sciences!). We need more than a few “aides” whispering in their ears when it comes to critical decisions involving scientific and technical matters. And since most of modern life does include such matters the need for scientific knowledge, experience, and most of all wisdom in our leaders is paramount.

George Mobus,
Assoc. Professor,
Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma
[My comments do not necessarily reflect the positions of my employer, but my job is to ask thoughtful questions!]

“Do scientists have a special obligation to be neutral when it comes to the implications of their findings for society more broadly?”

It is one of the more bizarre systemic fantasies in science that scientists are, or can be, “neutral”; also called “objective”. WE AREN’T- WE NEVER HAVE BEEN- WE CAN’T BE. WE’RE – HUMAN.

The fantasy is not useful- particularly now. Let’s admit, please, what we believe- the waters will be much clearer.

Real scientists know and admit this. The problem comes with those PhDs who are not quite “secure” in their self image. They feel the need to “out-Herod Herod” – and claim to adhere to the most stringent kinds of intellectual self discipline. Fantasy. Muddy nonsense.

See my post just below yours (above – #8). I am more than eager to ask such questions. My premise is that when the world doesn’t seem to be getting better, even with all of our history and science, then there must be something wrong in our basic assumptions about who and what we are. It’s time to ask deeper questions.

Dr. Somerville was on the losing side of a Marc 2007 debate between scientists over whether global warming was a “crisis.” No wonder scientists promoting man-made climate fears rarely want to debate the scienice of climate change, when they do they lose badly.

Excerpt: A high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people. Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home energy use. After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate “crisis” appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was ‘pretty dull” and at “a sharp disadvantage” against the skeptics. ScientificAmerican.com’s blog agreed, saying the believers in a man-made climate catastrophe “seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprising, it swung against them.”

The language of pure science is not very accessible to the general public. Scientists have a choice between hoping that journalists will do a good job of conveying what their findings mean, or stepping up and speaking for themselves. I think I would rather hear the scientists speak.

You don’t see this kind of debate in other fields. We expect economists to speak up about what kinds of economic decisions should be made. We expect people who study education to make recommendations about how schools should work. We expect medical researchers to recommend the treatment they found to be effective. Why should people studying climate refrain from letting us know what actions they think we should take?

“Consumer” (post #5), I’m still a big Bob Dylan fan, but I agree that the idea of him doing a Caddilac commercial doesn’t sit well. Alas, nobody’s perfect. Who knows what idiosyncrasies Shakespeare had?

Andy, thanks for the great “P.S.” post (#6).

Regarding one topic that came up earlier in this thread, I can only quote Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein:

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.”
– Albert Einstein

regarding the abovementioned ‘intelligence squared’ debate (which i listened to on new york’s npr station wnyc)regarding the extent and risks associated with agw, i’d just like to point out that by the end of the debate, there was a substantial increase in the audience who described themselves as skeptics. i believe the ‘skeptics’ originally numbered about 27%, and at the debate the percentage of skeptics rose substantially to about 45%. i recall that the moderator, brian lehrer, of wnyc, was quite stunned by the change in attitude of the attendees. so much for the impenetrability of ‘information silos.’

I can appreciate the emotion that compelled some to switch their professional interests from pure research to communication of issues of importance to them –

I have switched from interests in pure and applied mathematics and phyics to applications of those areas as well – to atmospheric physics and associated atmospheric property changes with composition and radiation changes.

My interst in doing this has been to 1) first of all, to investigate if any fears whatsoever are remotely justified for “greenhouse gas” composition changes in the atmosphere 2) to examine how a theory was developed that indicated cause for concern and 3) communicate what I know that cannot possibly be true, within the realm of phyical law about claims made in regard to any possible danger associated with greenhouse gases.

The public needs to know that numerous researchers and others are engaged in objective interpretation of many conclusions recently made regarding the global climate.

With the application of a variety of methods, many claims that would point to some danger about the climate have been shown to be without scientific merit. These demonstrations continue to find their way to the literature.

I do this only for one reason: To contribute to removing unwarrented fear, so that a factual basis for rejection of ill-considered Government actions is available.

Most of these actions would do the most damage to the poorest, and excepting to enhance a lot of difficulty poorer people already face – there would be no benefit.

It is intersting how the individual, who is the subject of this article, and myself, can be so diametrically opposed in their rational beliefs about the natural climate.

How can this be, I wonder? And then i think, the Earth has had an oxidizing atmosphere for four billions of years – since the development of life – and despite numerous extraordinary composition changes over that time as well as severe external events –

there is no evidence, none, zero, that any composition change, associated with any extraordinary “greenhouse gas” change has ever left an influence on the global climate that could be seen in the geological record.

People seem to forget that carbon dioxide and methane weren’t invented two weeks before the movie “inconvenient truth” came out.

And if we haven’t seen cause for alarm in four billion years, with a lot more devastating influences than human activites (to be sure) having been around

– we’re not going to see them in this or the next election term, either.

Why don’t you give as much attention to the over 19000 American Scientists who have signed a petition which very much doubts the effect of human activity on global warming. The petition can be found here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

“I think a dramatic shocking surprising climate event that is unambiguously due to global warming may be the only thing that motivates people and governments. Maybe a big chunk of ice sheet destabilizing and producing a significant sudden sea level rise. Unfortunately, then it may be too late, because it’s essentially irreversible; you can’t cool the world enough to make the ice re-form quickly.”

now, let me ask: what opposite climate event might make dr. somerville question his own conclusions and his confidence in the need for immediate remediating or preventive action:

— a rapid re-freezing of the arctic ice?

— several years of average temperature decreases while co2 levels continuing to rise?

any, i’m sure all of us on this board would appreciate your emailing dr. somerville for a response.

I think the same question could apply to journalists, where advocacy carries the same risks and concerns. Ultimately, journalists and scientists have similar aims: to discover and report the truth. And yet journalists and scientists are human. It can be hard to keep a professional distance, there’s a natural desire to intervene when the stakes are high and you can clearly see what needs to be done. I can think of quite a few journalists who switched careers to become politicians or activists because they wanted to have a more direct influence, to do more than just observe and report. (As valuable as that service is, it feels removed from direct action and eventually you have to wonder if what you do is making any difference).

There are risks either way: scientists or journalists who engage in advocacy risk losing credibility among their peers. But if nobody speaks out, the risks are broader and more serious. It’s one thing to read the findings of a big, faceless research body such as the IPCC and quite another to hear the personal convictions of a scientist who has spent years studying climate change and understands the evidence. It’s like those moments in war movies (or Star Trek for that matter) when a military officer requests “permission to speak freely.” You know that what you’re going to hear is coming from the heart and that it counts. We need to hear that sort of thing.

ok, here are the ‘before’ and ‘after’ numbers on the intelligence squared debate.

before: 57% (crisis), 30% (not a crisis

after: 46% (crisis), 42% (not a crisis.

i think you should have mentioned, andy, that by all reasonable standards,

SOMERVILLE LOST THE DEBATE, presenting to an audience of well-educated and sophisticated new yorkers![ANDY REVKIN responds: Yes, should have mentioned that and glad you did. I will note that, in response to a question by me, all the debaters agreed that — ideally — we should not keep pumping long-lived greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There’s a fun moment in the transcript on this. As I say in the story I wrote last summer for AARP Magazine touching on the debate, the focus on winners and losers distracts from the issues that were NOT in debate (that more CO2 will warm the world, and it’s a hard process to undo once done).]

I think that the more fundamental issue here is the public’s misunderstanding of how science works.

The public fails to understand the peer-reviewed scientific process. Even if Dr. Somerville did lose his objectivity, it would not mean that he could then write research papers full of falsehoods that would go unchecked. His peers would relentlessly review his data, models, methods, and findings. His papers would only be published if they passed these tests, which would be quite irrespective his personal opinion, objectivity, or bias.

This is the same misunderstanding that allows the media to portray, and the public to believe, that debate still exists. A person who understands the scientific process wouldn’t be able to state that water vapor is a greater percentage of the greenhouse effect and think that no climate scientist had thought of this before. The extreme vetting process ensures that these questions get asked.

So I’m glad that Dr. Somerville is speaking out. I believe that he needs both to spread the message of the necessary policies to the politicians and the process and conclusions of the science to the public.

(Do scientists have a special obligation to be neutral when it comes to the implications of their findings for society more broadly? Is it possible to advocate for a particular course in climate policy and not have that color how you do your scientific research, or how you communicate it?)

This is not an attack just a bit of information that isn’t biased just purely exposition.

This is two links regarding an assessment of the findings regarding the Panel findings referenced in the article above.

In my earlier comment I should have just given and example. The following link is from a popular article for the public, a peer reviewed paper would just have far more detail and explanation. I try to inform myself with the research and then convey the most poignant findings. I did not pick the title. http://www.mountaineers.org/nwmj/07/071_Glaciers.html

What's Next

About

By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to pass nine billion. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. Dot Earth was created by Andrew Revkin in October 2007 -- in part with support from a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship -- to explore ways to balance human needs and the planet's limits.